God save the Queen

I could use this post to talk about the growing number of people who see the Queen and our connections to “Mother England” as becoming increasingly irrelevant. ;) But you’ll probably be bombarded with enough of this in the local papers today, so I’ll skip it and move on to something a bit different.

I imagine that it pretty much sucks to be a celebrity. “Sucks” is a technical word meaning “I wouldn’t want the job”. ;) Celebrities in our modern, Western culture, seem to me to be fantastic cautionary tales. We, as a society, seem to attach ourselves to them as a pet dog does to a chew toy. Then, after we’ve shaken them about, chewed on them and spat them back out, we move on to the next chewable option to repeat the cycle.

Take Britney Spears – The Dumb Ox wrote a great post last year talking about the trouble she was in and the state of our culture that we can produce someone like her. Things haven’t got any better for poor Britney as she has lost custody of her kids, her career has almost disappeared, she’s been in and out of rehab and had multiple run-ins with the law…pretty sad reading for a 26-year old!

And yet our morbid fascination with the product our society has created generates 92,900,000 results on Google when you search for her name.

What has this got to do with the Queen? Well, I’m sad to say, it seems that the British monarchy is seen by most as simply another set of celebrities – better spoken and more conservatively dressed than Ms.Spears (mostly), but celebrities nonetheless. We (collectively) see them not as leaders, but as curiosities. They can’t go on holiday or out for dinner or for a walk in the park without a pack of photographers following them and taking photos…which we (as a society) seem to gobble up like so many doggie-treats!

What is wrong with us? Why do we do this to this small group of…well…us? I mean, these people are just people after all. Shouldn’t they be entitled to a bit of peace and quiet and, dare I say it, privacy?

Do you ever get the feeling that some people are desperately trying to cram whatever celebrity they can into that God-shaped void in their lives? Worshipping them in place of He who should be worshipped?

So, Happy Birthday Your Majesty – I hope you have a nice quiet day (or had, back in April), and that the year ahead is a boring, uneventful and somewhat peaceful one. And I hope that by the time your son or grandson is King, we have moved on from our chew-toy fascination to something with a bit more…substance.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Comments: 149

    1. Tui June 2, 2008 at 7:43 pm

      Seems as though no one wants God to bless the queen!

    2. greg bourke June 2, 2008 at 8:03 pm

      Would that be Elizabeth Windsor or Elizabeth Saxe Coburg und Gotha?

    3. Tui June 2, 2008 at 9:45 pm

      Know of Windsor cant say I know the other chick

    4. poorclear June 3, 2008 at 2:56 am

      I think the law needs to be reformed to allow for the conversion of the Queen without loss of her position. Otherwise, I am for the monarchy in principle, though perhaps a monarchy that apostocies should also set the throne aside.

    5. Universal June 3, 2008 at 10:48 am

      I am for a Constitutional Catholic Monarchy that actually governs, not one that sits by in their Castle while Parliament regressively passes more and more evil laws which is what our current Protestant Monarchy has done.

    6. greg bourke June 3, 2008 at 11:09 am

      Elizabeth Windsor IS Elizabeth Saxe Coburg und Gotha. That’s her historical family name.

      George V changed the family name to something more “English” in 1917, during WW1.

    7. Tui June 3, 2008 at 1:09 pm

      Bloody Germans

    8. Universal June 3, 2008 at 1:52 pm

      I’m greatly impressed by your loving acceptance of our German brothers Tui. That statement was just brimming with charitable superfluity ;).

    9. greg bourke June 3, 2008 at 3:18 pm

      It’s the basis of the Blackadder IV gag where Percy defensively states, “I’m as English as Queen Victoria!”.
      Blackadder replies, “So your mother’s a German, you’re half German and you married a German.”

      Nothing wrong with that of course but it shows the distance traveled to establish a Protestant throne and head of the Anglican Church who is as English as, well, as English as Queen Victoria.
      +++

      As for Victoria there’s another interesting theory.
      In A.N.Wilson’s recent history “The Victorians” he recounts the high probability that Victoria was not the Duke of Kent’s daughter. Victoria ascended to the throne through her father so that is significant.
      The evidence for this is genetic. Porphyria was common in her father’s family, it is what caused the “Madness of King George”. Haemophillia was unknown in her father’s or mother’s family.
      Porphoria has not been seen in any descendant of Victoria whereas haemophilla has famously appeared.
      Where did the porphoria go and where did the haemophillia come from, both changing at the same time?

    10. Andrewesman June 3, 2008 at 3:30 pm

      God Save Her Majesty, and all good and loyal subjects say ‘Amen’

      LORD, our heavenly Father, the high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth; Most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen ELIZABETH; and so replenish her with the grace of thy Holy Spirit, that she may always incline to thy will, and walk in thy way. Endue her plenteously with heavenly gifts; grant her in health and wealth long to live; strengthen her that she may vanquish and overcome all her enemies; and finally, after this life, she may attain everlasting joy and felicity; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

      That’s the stuff. I say this prayer most days at Morning Prayer, and I mean every word.

    11. Andrewesman June 3, 2008 at 3:32 pm

      I have no trouble with any Prince converting to Rome. He or she must simply give up his or her place in the Succession. There is no possibility of a Catholic King without disestablishing Holy Church, and that they will do over my decomposing corpse.

    12. Scribe June 3, 2008 at 3:39 pm

      Andrewesman,

      There is no possibility of a Catholic King without disestablishing Holy Church, and that they will do over my decomposing corpse.

      How old art thou, good sir? ;-)

    13. greg bourke June 3, 2008 at 3:58 pm

      Ah, so now it all comes out.
      It’s all about the English (German?) throne and Princes and Politics and hats and whatnot.

      Isn’t the principle reason the monarch has to be non-Catholic (can they be Buddhist?) is because of Acts of Parliament (Succession, (1707))?
      In other words, which has primacy over the Church? Parliament or the Church? Who chooses between the choices for Archbishop of Canterbury by the way? The Prime Minister isn’t it?
      I wonder how Helen Clarke would make that choice?!

      +++

      So the strong possibility that Victoria isn’t the Duke of Kent’s daughter is not as worrying as the horrendous thought of a “Catholic King”. Privately Buddhist okay but Catholic, oh my no, “from my cold dead hands!!”
      Gosh, that is so romantic, I’m going all misty.

    14. Gianna June 3, 2008 at 4:47 pm

      Bloody Germans

      Being half german, I resent that.

    15. Andrewesman June 3, 2008 at 6:01 pm

      How old art thou, good sir?

      Five and twenty, Scribe. I’ve got a few breaths in me yet.

      Greg,

      I’m for proper Royal Supremacy. Cut out the middle man, and let the Church and the Queen between them sort out the episcopate. They’d do a vastly better job than Tony Blair.
      Indeed it appears to be moving that way since Archbishop Ramsey’s reform in the appointment processes have been continuing.

      The thought of a Catholic King is horrendous–and I’m not keen on a privately Bhuddist, Muslim or Zoroastrian one either. It’s not because I’m ipso facto opposed to Catholics and Bhuddists et. al, simply to those persons purporting to rule a Confessional State. I imagine Spain would have a similar problem if the King decided to be a Protestant. I want the Supreme Governor of the Church of England to be an Anglican, in private AND on Sundays. This is not impossible, or unreasonable–as Her Majesty shows, and as she also shows, it doesn’t have to be bigoted either. FYI Greg, the Act of Settlement says that the Sovereign must be able to take Communion in the Church of England–Lutherans are thus in, but last I heard, we weren’t in Communion with Bhuddists. Or, to my regret, the Roman Church. Write us a nice response to Saepius Officio, and maybe that might change.

    16. famous spear June 3, 2008 at 6:09 pm

      Gianna,

      You may like to know that the legitimate king of England is actually a German!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz%2C_Duke_of_Bavaria

      If it was not for the fact that the King James II about 300 years ago was kicked off his throne because he was catholic, this guy would be the king of England today. So, QE2 is actually scarcely legitimate as a monarch. If I remember correctly the brits had to go past 50 legitimate claimants to the throne to find a protestant one!

      What’s more is that Franz is the Grand Master of a German Catholic religious order: the Royal Order of Saint George for the Defense of the Immaculate Conception. They do charity stuff and work to protect the Catholic faith.

      Anyway, the British monarchy is on the way out. They have given up doing their role, which is effectively to protect the people. They cannot or will not stand up to human-animal hybrid monsters or any other of GB’s problems. Even as a Catholic with Irish blood I would like to see them be strong leaders of England for many centuries to come, but that will never happen again. They have lost their sovereignty and powers, they are figure heads now just until the muslims and secularists in england get bored with them.

    17. Andrewesman June 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm

      Anyway, the British monarchy is on the way out.

      Sorry, just shuddered, crossed myself and said “God avert the omen”

      I’m getting more Laudian by the minute.

      Also, don’t underestimate the power of a figurehead. In many ways, the Monarchy isn’t too dissimilar to that nice man in a white cassock who lives somewhere in Italy.

    18. famous spear June 3, 2008 at 6:17 pm

      Andrewesman,

      would you happen to be an orthodox anglican? where do orthodox anglicans hang out? -besides catholic blog sites.

    19. Andrewesman June 3, 2008 at 6:26 pm

      Yep. I have that honour.

      There’s a truck-load of Anglican blogs. Start here:

      http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/ (there’s an NZ branch too)

      America
      http://www.standfirminfaith.com/
      http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/

      The Smells and Bells brigade, God bless us

      http://www.forwardinfaith.com/

      And the patented moderates, who get flack from both sides
      http://www.covenant-communion.com/

      The Calvinistas hang out at Reform, the Open lot at Fulcrum–there is a lively Anglican blogosphere dedicated to the defence of the Anglican way–you should find most of the highlights from the sites above. There’s also other stuff like the Latimer Fellowship and all that, but this should do to be going on with.

      As for hanging out at Catholic blogs, one has to keep an eye on one’s friends–even seperated ones. :-)

    20. greg bourke June 3, 2008 at 6:52 pm

      good posts all and thanks famous spear on the Bavarian.

      Andrew, a couple of years ago you might have included in your blogroll the cryptically named “pontifications” by Episcopalian Alvin Kimel, he converted recently. http://pontifications.wordpress.com/

      I also used to enjoy the blog “metalutheran” but got tired of their parochialism (white Americans stuck in the 16th century). I recently read that one of the contributor’s wives had converted to “the Church” (http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/), imbroglio!

      A hassle as both Ponty and BHT are religious pastors.

      I recently heard Bishop Gene Robinson on National Radio. Sanctimonious chap ain’t he! He’s very dissapointed he didn’t receive more speaking time at the upcoming Lambeth starting July 10. He only gets to chair a discussion group or something not befitting his status.
      Is FiF attending Lambeth?

    21. Chris Sullivan June 3, 2008 at 7:15 pm

      It’s an amazing insight into the nature of Anglicanism that we have the Queen as defender of the faith and the British Prime Minister appointing the leader of the Anglican Church.

      Which goes to the heart of Anglicanism as a state created religion.

      God Bless

    22. Gianna June 3, 2008 at 7:25 pm

      I find it hard that you are so against Anglicanisim yet prepared to admit Muslims are basically Catholics

    23. Chris Sullivan June 3, 2008 at 8:28 pm

      Gianna,

      I said “we have”.

      I’m not against Anglicanism. I was baptised and raised Anglican and there is a very noble tradition in Anglicanism, as there also is in Islam.

      Anglicans are basically Catholic although with distortions arising from their statism.

      The same distortions are to be found in Islam, in Judaism, in the Orthodox Churches, and even when the Catholic Church has enmeshed herself in state power.

      God Bless

    24. Andrewesman June 4, 2008 at 9:44 am

      If it was not for the fact that the King James II about 300 years ago was kicked off his throne because he was catholic.

      Well, that and his attempt to abuse the Dispensing Power without the consent of Parliament. Also, he was an idiot.

      A Bavarian as King of Scotland (the Jacobite line renounced the English crown during the First World War) strains even my powers of historical justification. :-) And, of course, he is a Roman Catholic :-)

      Gene Robinson drives me nuts. He is indeed intolerably sanctimonious–the Communion is split “at its deepest level” and he still thinks it’s all about him.

      Last I heard it is likely FiF will attend Lambeth to make some kind of stand for Christian orthodoxy, but there are at least some FiF bishops who will also or alternatively be at the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem just beforehand. One of the good things about the Current Unpleasantness is that it is forcing catholics, Evangelicals and Charismatics to stop fighting about altar candles and baptismal regeneration and work together for once. If we’d done that forty years ago we wouldn’t be in such a mess.

      Anglicans are basically Catholic although with distortions arising from their statism.

      “Roman Catholics are basically properly catholic with distortions arising from their rampant Romanism.” Two can play at that sort of game; I find it annoying, dull and slightly patronising that Mr. Sullivan attempts to co-opt my tradition into his Lowest-Common-Multiple Tridentine Interfaith bunfight. Still, carry on, Chris. Just don’t mind me yawning over here in the Anglican corner. :-)

    25. Chris Sullivan June 4, 2008 at 10:14 am

      “Roman Catholics are basically properly catholic with distortions arising from their rampant Romanism.”

      I’d agree with that. We do have distortions arising from our rampant Romanism – that’s largely a consequence of large sections of the Church walking off in schism, and our own arrogance and latin legalism.

      And we’re poorer and missing something by their absence – missing a balancing influence which would steady our rampant Romanism.

      A church which breaths with only one lung is missing an awful lot of fresh air !

      God Bless

    26. poorclear June 5, 2008 at 6:07 am

      England has had a long history of Catholic monarchs. In her prime, her monarchs were Catholic. She was nobler in the Middle Ages, breathing saner air, like most countries of Europe. England’s greatness precedes the Reformation. I would be very happy to see England more authentically linked to her Catholic past.

      But Andrewesman, perhaps you see my view as mythological and that the past has always been Anglican.

      But I think then we could come to a compromise and get back to the Anglicanism of say 13th Century England. Call it what you want to, but I’d be happy with that.

    27. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 7:07 am

      get back to the Anglicanism of say 13th Century England.

      I think that’s a wonderful idea !

      Ressourcement and all that. Going back to the sources.

      God Bless

    28. Dei Verbum June 5, 2008 at 7:16 am

      Chris you say
      “and there is a very noble tradition in Anglicanism”,

      the ‘noble tradition’ is its catholicism but I would suggest there isnt much of that left. Congregational democracy is gradually throwing out the baby(s) with the bath water.It is only a matter of time and authentic anglicanism will be no more.

    29. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 7:41 am

      Dei,

      I don’t know.

      Mark Shea visited Australia a few years back and found the Anglicans there more Catholic than the Catholics.

      In my local Anglican Church they still have altar rails in the chapel and kneel to receive.

      And there’s every bit as much Congregational democracy among Catholics as there is among Anglicans. Maybe even more.

      I’d much rather we both grew together into full unity rather than the Anglicans just die out.

      God Bless

    30. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 7:43 am

      “A church which breaths with only one lung is missing an awful lot of fresh air!”

      Yes, and people who think with only half a brain tend to miss an awful lot as well.

      Bring back Mary Queen of Scots

    31. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 7:46 am

      “I’d much rather we both grew together into full unity rather than the Anglicans just die out.”

      They won’t die out – okay, the liberal Anglicans will die out, and many others will split and form evangelical groups, but the faithful ones will simply leave the rebel alliance and return to Mother Church.

    32. poorclear June 5, 2008 at 8:04 am

      Anglicans and Catholics are very close theologically. They both believe that Jesus is a divine person in two natures – and reject the Nestorian tendency to make him a divine person and a human person. So there is great hope for unity.

    33. Dei Verbum June 5, 2008 at 8:04 am

      Chris;post 29
      “Mark Shea visited Australia a few years back and found the Anglicans there more Catholic than the Catholics……………

      And there’s every bit as much Congregational democracy among Catholics as there is among Anglicans. Maybe even more.”

      This is possibly the most sensible comment I have seen from you and I agree.

      and this is why dissenters in the Cathoilc Church need to be challenged.

      The difference between Anglicanism and authentic Catholicism is that one has a teaching authority.

      Your comments are often taken as “Congregational democracy among Catholics” hence the reaction you recieve.

      Full unity can not mean “growing together” as this implies compromise/change on the part of the Catholic Church which it has no mandate to do. It can only mean Anglicans coming home where they belong.

      The Father awaits the prodigal son and welcomes him when he returns

    34. poorclear June 5, 2008 at 8:08 am

      Andrewesman – I hope that you have a desire for Church unity that goes beyond the desire for the monarch of England to be the head of the Church in England. Deep down I suspect you do.

    35. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 8:19 am

      Full unity can not mean “growing together” as this implies compromise/change on the part of the Catholic Church which it has no mandate to do. It can only mean Anglicans coming home where they belong.

      There are some things we cannot change and there are some things we can.

      If we are not willing to change anything ourselves then our desire for unity is not real.

      And we have already done this, eg by a change to allow the Anglican Rite, and by a change to allow married Anglican priests to be ordained as Catholic priests.

      I suspect that there will be further changes that the Catholic side will make as we move together towards full unity.

      God Bless

    36. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 8:24 am

      “Anglicans and Catholics are very close theologically. They both believe that Jesus is a divine person in two natures – and reject the Nestorian tendency to make him a divine person and a human person. So there is great hope for unity.”

      Poorclear, thanks for clarifying the official Catholic teaching on this important issue.

      ;-)

    37. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 8:30 am

      “…by a change to allow the Anglican Rite”

      Did I miss something during breakfast?

      Is the Church now allowing the Anglican Rite?

      Without a valid priesthood, how can their be a valid rite?

    38. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 8:38 am

      Is it really appropriate to use a pseudoname with an AK-47 in it ?

      Put down your gun and we’ll discuss the matter.

      God Bless

    39. Dei Verbum June 5, 2008 at 8:59 am

      Chris this is the nub really

      You act as if the Church can change to accommodate different views.

      It can’t on matters of doctrine and shouldn’t.

      You also seem to allude to there being ‘two churchs’ when there is only one. CoE left, it is for them to return.

      Married priests are not forbidden it is just that priests make a vow of celibacy which excludes them if married and orders exclude them from marriage. Anglican priests dont make a vow of celibacy. The exceptions can be made but do not prove the rule.

      We can develop more mature understanding?Yes
      Compromise? no.
      Grow together in understanding? yes
      Grow towards each other in a new common belief No!

    40. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 9:15 am

      Dei,

      It can’t on matters of doctrine and shouldn’t.

      Doctrine develops.

      For 1800 years the Church tolerated slavery until Pope Leo XIII came and developed the doctrine, proclaiming slavery wrong. Pope John Paul II came and developed the doctrine even furthur, declaring slavery intrinsically evil.

      For 2000 years the Church tolerated the death penalty until Pope John Paul II came and declared it wrong. Cardinal Ratzinger was so impressed by this development of doctrine that he instructed a new version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be prepared to include this important development of doctrine.

      Doctrine develops and will continue to develop.

      Ex-Anglican Cardinal Newman wrote a famous essay on just that – the Development of Doctrine.

      Some good things have come from the Anglican world, huh ?

      God Bless

    41. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 9:29 am
    42. Dei Verbum June 5, 2008 at 9:43 am

      Chris;
      there are core beliefs that arent negotiable;
      the real presence in the eucharist
      woman priests
      homosexuality
      teaching authority to name a few.

      there is a difference between mature understanding to develop doctrine and compromise to sanitise.

      anglicanism is sanitising in the name of popularism and in the process becoming sterile.

    43. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 10:19 am

      “Doctrine develops”

      Yes, but it doesn’t change and then become the polar opposite of what it formerly was.

      “For 2000 years the Church tolerated the death penalty until Pope John Paul II came and declared it wrong. Cardinal Ratzinger was so impressed by this development of doctrine that he instructed a new version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be prepared to include this important development of doctrine.”

      This is where you are totally wrong – JP II never declared the death penalty to be intrinsically immoral at all – and Cardinal Ratzinger certainly never did, in fact he has made official public statements which clearly state that Catholics are free to dispute whether the death penalty is licit or not (in other words, the Church does not definitively teach that the death penalty is wrong – or else Catholics would not be able to enter into free debate about the morality of it)

      The Church has not changed its doctrine on the death penalty – this is a common error that inexperienced Internet formed people accept, but it simply isn’t true.

      The Church still teaches exactly what it has always taught – that the death penalty is NOT an intrinsically evil act, and therefore, if the circumstances were right it could be a perfectly permissible act of self-defense on the part of a society trying to protect itself from a violent criminal.

      However, what has changed in the last couple of hundred years is the fact that our penal system and our justice system has become a lot more advanced – this has meant that under our current societal conditions there are alternative means of protecting society from violent offenders, and therefore use of the death penalty has become excessive force when trying to defend yourself against an unjust aggressor – obviously using excessive force, even in self-defense, is immoral in Catholic moral teaching.

      But this is not a change in the doctrine – the doctrine is still exactly the same as what it was: the death penalty is morally acceptable if the conditions justify its use.

      What has changed is the societal conditions – and the current societal conditions do not justify the use of the death penalty, which is why Pope John Paul II said what he said about the use of the death penalty.

      In other words: JP II was NOT addressing the moral nature of the death penalty, when he opposed it, instead he was addressing the moral nature of its use – and he was stating the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that it is unjust to use the death penalty if it is not absolutely required to protect people from unjust aggression.

      But the Catholic doctrine on the death penalty has not changed – and if tomorrow our societal infrastructures collapsed and we had to resort back to simple village living, where there were no prisons, etc, then it would be perfectly acceptable to use the death penalty to protect societies from unjust aggressors.

    44. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 10:49 am

      Poorclear,

      We might be able to converge somewhere around 1530, with effort.

      On Church unity, I suspect I do too. But it depends what day it is. Like Elizabeth I, I wish the Church of England to be “maintained as at this day (preferably actually about 50 years ago) and so to leave it behind me”

      Anglican Rite, or Anglican Use, are Roman Catholics in union with Rome who use a Romanified Book of Common Prayer liturgy, much like the Eastern Catholics.

      Growing together will indeed require us to repent our unwarranted innovations in Holy Orders, and even doctrine. I am sufficiently an English catholic to ask God to haste the day this happens. But it will also require Roman Christians to give ground too–principally the puzzling sense of superiority among some which refuses to learn from other Christians, and simply assumes the only path to Truth is one marked “To Rome,” and worse, Rome sometime around the Council of Trent. Ut Unum Sint asks both sides to come together on terms of equality and learn each from the other, as Christian brethren. This requires neither side to give up sincerely held doctrinal positions, and both to have the humility to seek truth and to share our common history together, producing the fruit and works of peace.

      I would love to see our Churches grow together, and I would love the Pope to licence Anglican Use. But Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither is Christian Unity. The most important thing is the desire for it–I wish I saw more of it in ecumenism, and among (some of) my Catholic friends. Alas, perhaps the wounds are too raw still.

    45. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 10:52 am

      anglicanism is sanitising in the name of popularism and in the process becoming sterile.

      Well, that’s true of some Anglicans, but speaking personally, I’m quite happy to party like it’s 1559. I haven’t a populist bone in my body, and neither is there one in our Prayer Book.

    46. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 10:55 am

      Andrewsman,

      Do you mind if I ask you a question ?

      When an Anglican woman priest celebrates mass, does the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ ?

      God Bless

    47. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 10:57 am

      The CoE left, it is for them to return

      Sorry, remind me who signed “Regnans In Excelsis” again? (Hint: It wasn’t Elizabeth I.)

    48. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 11:01 am

      Chris,

      No, I don’t mind.

      No, it does not.

      Holy Orders are reserved by the Church’s whole tradition, and by the testimony of Scripture and practice, for men only. The ordination of women is an invalid innovation, upon doubtful authority. Since women cannot be properly ordained, the Sacraments they consecrate are invalid.

    49. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 11:03 am

      Ahh yes, Regnans In Excelsis :-

      Regnans in Excelsis was a papal bull issued on February 25, 1570 by Pope Pius V declaring “Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime” to be a heretic and releasing all her subjects from any allegiance to her and excommunicating any that obeyed her orders.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis

      Pius V did a bunch of very foolhardy things.

      God Bless

    50. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 11:10 am

      Andrewsman,

      By “the Sacraments they consecrate are invalid” do you mean that the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ when the minister is an Anglican woman priest ?

      God Bless

    51. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 11:14 am

      No, they do not. As I said.

      No orders, no priesthood, and hence no consecration. The host remains bread.

    52. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 11:18 am

      Andrewsman,

      Maybe so, but I find hard to believe that God would deny his body and blood merely because the Anglicans have seen fit to ordain women priests.

      We believe that God is not bound by his sacraments.

      http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1257.htm

      God Bless

    53. TTM June 5, 2008 at 11:21 am

      Some things I hear from you, Andrewsman, are more Catholic than some things I’ve heard from our camp. :shock:

      “Holy Orders are reserved by the Church’s whole tradition… women cannot be properly ordained,”

      “Ut Unum Sint asks…”

    54. TTM June 5, 2008 at 11:24 am

      Chris,

      “Doctrine develops and will continue to develop. Ex-Anglican Cardinal Newman wrote a famous essay on just that – the Development of Doctrine.”

      Yes, but note the implication in the ‘Ex-Anglican’ bit.

    55. TTM June 5, 2008 at 11:37 am

      Andrewesman,

      I think it’s a case of realising the original unity that was violated by an illegitimate state authority. That original unity includes the Petrine primacy with the charism of infallibility attached to its office (Matthew 16:18-19, John 16:13, Luke 22:31-32).

      “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:9)

    56. lawrence June 5, 2008 at 11:43 am

      Why do I get the feeling that

      Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47

      and

      Little Red Fire Engine who thought he could

      and

      Dumb Ox

      Are exactly the same author, can we please have some consistency from authors, and not silly playing around because they happen to be the mediators of this blog site?

    57. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 11:47 am

      We have a male priesthood who consecrate valid sacraments. Hence we are not denied them.

    58. lawrence June 5, 2008 at 11:49 am

      You go for it Andrewesman. ;) Good to see you last week by the way, when am i getting this email from you?

    59. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 11:59 am

      “We have a male priesthood who consecrate valid sacraments. Hence we are not denied them.”

      Yes, but the Apostolic Succession is missing, or at least it has been so seriously compromised that it can no longer be certain that the orders, and therefore the consecration, is licit.

    60. greg bourke June 5, 2008 at 12:00 pm

      So, still no one worried that Queen Victoria, Queen Elizabeth’s gt-gt-gt-grandmother was probably illegitimate? c.f. post #9.

    61. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 12:03 pm

      the Apostolic Succession is missing

      Not quite. The Anglicans have a valid Apostolic Succession thru the Old Catholic bishops.

      Whether or not that reliably extends to every Anglican priest I don’t know.

      Andrewsman : do you know for sure that every male Anglican priest has valid apostolic succession ?

      God Bless

    62. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 12:05 pm

      Lawrence, when I’ve finished thinking.

      59, I refer you to the excellent response of the English Archbishops to that baseless charge Saepius Officio:
      http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm

    63. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 12:51 pm

      “The Anglicans have a valid Apostolic Succession thru the Old Catholic bishops.”

      You mean: “they used to have valid Apostolic Succession”, but that succession has become so compromised that it can no longer be certain which Anglican ministers do and do not have Apostolic Succession.

      The succession was lost by successive state interferences in the Church of England.

    64. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 12:59 pm

      Scary White,

      No, I mean that the Anglicans today have a valid Apostolic Succession thru the validly ordained bishops of the Old Catholic Church (who split from us over Papal Infallibility but whose sacraments are, nonetheless, valid) and who have ordained Anglican bishops.

      Whether or not the Anglican apostolic succession was broken in Parker et al is now a moot point because it has been restored thru the bishops of the Old Catholic Church.

      Christ makes all things new.

      When are you going to put down your AK47 ?

      God Bless

    65. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 2:19 pm

      But Chris,

      The Catholic Church has actually stated that the line of Apostolic Succession is too compromised to actually be certain that Anglican Orders do have Apostolic Succession.

    66. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 2:27 pm

      Scary White,

      If an Anglican bishop is ordained by a bishop of the Old Catholic Church then his ordination is valid. Any priests he ordains are also valid ordinations.

      I don’t know how many Anglican bishops actually have valid ordination by Apostolic Succession via the Old Catholic Bishops but maybe Andrewsman can help us out on that ?

      God Bless

    67. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 2:29 pm

      Andrewsman,

      In response to your referral in #62, I refer you to the “A vindication of the Bull ‘Apostolice Cure’ A letter on Anglican Orders by the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the province of Westminster in reply to the letter addressed to them by the Anglican Archbishops of York”:

      http://www.angelfire.com/nj/malleus/PDFs/Vindication-AC.pdf

      An excellent response to the Anglican criticisms of the infallible teaching on Pope Leo XIII.

    68. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 2:35 pm

      Andrewsman,

      I just realised that you may not have the time to read all of the excellent document I linked to in #67, so for the sake of time, here is a basic summary of its contents from the Catholic encyclopedia:

      In this “Vindication”, after some preliminary observations on the extrinsic reasons which the Bull had given for its decision, attention is called to the false standpoint from which the two Archbishops had judged the arguments of the Bull.

      In their “Responsio” they are mainly occupied with challenging the soundness of the principles on which the papal decision had been based. They urge that it rests on a false and unscriptural conception of the priesthood, and that, if for this the more scriptural conception expounded by themselves had been substituted, the decision must have been different.

      But this, the “Vindication” points out, is ignoratio elenchi.

      Of course the Pope considers that the Catholic conception of the priesthood is in conformity with Scripture; but that was not the question under consideration.

      The Anglican grievance was that those of their clergy who came over to us were re-ordained; and to complain of this was to contend that even on our principles their orders ought to be recognized; while no doubt the particular section of the Anglican communion which took most to heart this practice of re-ordination was in substantial agreement with us as to our conception of the priesthood.

      Hence the Holy See, in examining the question, necessarily assumed the validity of its own principles, and inquired only if they had been duly applied.

      The “Vindication”, however, to facilitate the understanding of the Pope’s reasons, sets itself to expand, explain, and vindicate by reference to the facts those points which the Bull, after the manner of legal documents, gives only in a highly condensed form.”

    69. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 2:38 pm

      An excellent response to the Anglican criticisms of the infallible teaching on Pope Leo XIII.

      I don’t think Leo XIII claimed infallibility on Anglican Succession.

      Infallibility is a precious gift but lets not abuse it by claiming it applies to more things than it actually does.

      God Bless

    70. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 2:51 pm

      Actually Chris, that teaching of Apostolice Cure from Pope Leo XIII regarding the invalid nature of Anglican Orders is a teaching that all Catholics must give “firm and definitive assent” to.

      Let me quote Cardinal Ratzinger from the doctrinal commentary that the CDF issued to accompany John Paul II’s Ad tuendam fidem:

      “With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given:… the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.

    71. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 2:53 pm

      And just to be clear, the doctrinal commentary from the CDF stated that any Catholic who failed to give assent to that teaching would: “no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church”.

    72. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 3:02 pm

      that teaching of Apostolice Cure from Pope Leo XIII regarding the invalid nature of Anglican Orders is a teaching that all Catholics must give “firm and definitive assent” to.

      Yes, I know.

      But that doesn’t mean that the Church teaches that Apostolicae Curae is infallible.

      Going to lay down your AK47 ?

      God Bless

    73. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 3:08 pm

      any Catholic who failed to give assent to that teaching would: “no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church”.

      Oh good. I am relieved that my excommunication is so secure.

      As for Old Catholic bishops, we have been in Communion with the Utrecht Union since the Bonn Agreement of 1931. I have no idea how many Anglican ordinations have thus been conducted with the participation of the Old Catholic bishops–there will no doubt be a record somewhere.

    74. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 3:11 pm

      Scary White,

      And since when did commentaries by Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the SCDF define infallible dogma ?

      They don’t.

      Only Popes have power to define infallible dogma and from what I can tell, Leo XIII did not go that far in Apostolicae Curae.

      A commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the SCDF can not make a teaching infallible. It can, at best, express Cardinal Ratzingers considered opinion that a teaching is infallible.

      In my own opinion, there are sufficient doubts in Anglican Succession to establish the truth of Apostolicae Curae but subsequent events have rendered it moot, as Cdl Hume has pointed out.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saepius_Officio#Opinions_of_Basil_Cardinal_Hume

      God Bless

    75. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 3:14 pm

      Oh good. I am relieved that my excommunication is so secure.

      It’s not just Anglicans they are trying to excommunicate, my dear Andrewsman, it’s Catholics too !

      We’re in the same boat here and people carrying AK47′s tend to mean business.

      God Bless

    76. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 3:19 pm

      Andrewsman,

      As you may well know, there are Anglican priests who take the doubts about the validity of Anglican Orders so seriously that they travel to Europe to make sure that their ordination is by a bishop with proper Apostolic Succession.

      So Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae cannot be entirely discarded, even from an Anglican point of view.

      God Bless

    77. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 3:31 pm

      So Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae cannot be entirely discarded, even from an Anglican point of view.

      Watch me.

    78. MacGyver June 5, 2008 at 3:48 pm

      “We’re in the same boat here and people carrying AK47′s tend to mean business.”
      He’s got a banjo as well Chris! Fun, and business.
      :-)

    79. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 3:50 pm

      This indicates that Rome does accept the possiblity of valid Anglican ordinations in some cases :-

      Graham Leonard was formerly a bishop of the Church of England, but converted to Roman Catholicism after his retirement. In 1994, he was ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. This ordination was conditional, in view of “prudent doubt” about the invalidity of his ordination in the Church of England. Rome agreed with Cardinal Hume’s assesment that there was uncertainty in some cases. He was later appointed a monsignor and then a Prelate of Honour by Pope John Paul II on 3 August 2000. This all took place even though Leonard was married and had two sons at the time.

      We only conditionally ordain when there’s a possibility that the man was already ordained.

      God Bless

    80. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 3:57 pm

      “In my own opinion, there are sufficient doubts in Anglican Succession to establish the truth of Apostolicae Curae but subsequent events have rendered it moot, as Cdl Hume has pointed out.”

      Aye?

      The Wikipedia section that you linked to actually states that:

      1. Hume was stating his own personal and private opinion (in other words it carries no definitive Magisterial authority – unlike Ratzinger’s CDF commentary)

      2. Hume changed his opinion – at first he stated that he thought the Anglican Orders were valid, but by 1994 he had changed his mind and stated that he had doubts about Anglican Orders.

      You’re telling me that you’re rejecting an official doctrinal commentary from the head of Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in order to embrace a private and inconsistent personal opinion on the matter?

    81. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 4:01 pm

      Chris,

      I forgot to mention that Leo XIII, in a letter he wrote regarding Apostolicae Curae to Cardinal Richard, on 5 November, 1896, stated that his “intention had been to pass a final judgment and settle (the question) forever” and that “Catholics were bound to receive (the judgment) with the fullest obedience as perpetuo firmam, ratam, irrevocabilem”.

      Unless of course you think that Pope Leo XIII’s own words do not carry the same authority as personal private opinions do?

    82. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 4:04 pm

      “Watch me.”

      LOL

      It seems that some rebellions die hard.

    83. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 4:06 pm

      Scary White,

      You’re telling me that you’re rejecting an official doctrinal commentary from the head of Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in order to embrace a private and inconsistent personal opinion on the matter?

      No.

      Read My Lips.

      This is what I said :-

      In my own opinion, there are sufficient doubts in Anglican Succession to establish the truth of Apostolicae Curae

      But, if Anglican bishops have been ordained by validly ordained bishops of the Old Catholic Church (which appears to have been the case) then the priests ordained by such Anglican bishops are validly ordained.

      God Bless

    84. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 4:09 pm

      “He’s got a banjo as well Chris! Fun, and business.”

      I like to carry an AK-47 and a Banjo because it says I want to be serious, but I’m here to party.

    85. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 4:13 pm

      “Read My Lips.”

      But Chris, I did read your lips.

      In #74 you said that “subsequent events have rendered [Apostolicae Curae] moot” and then you linked to some quotes by Cardinal Hume which you claimed supported this opinion.

      How can Apostolicae Curae be both moot and definitive at the same time?

    86. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 4:14 pm

      Scary White,

      I’m not sure that a letter to a cardinal counts as a basis for establishing infallibility.

      Cannon law requires :-

      749 §3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

      http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2G.HTM#9G

      God Bless

    87. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 4:16 pm

      How can Apostolicae Curae be both moot and definitive at the same time?

      If subsequent events overcome the obstacles outlined in Apostolicae Curae.

      God Bless

    88. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 4:26 pm

      “I’m not sure that a letter to a cardinal counts as a basis for establishing infallibility.”

      Um, it does if the letter writer is a Pope, and in that letter he is commenting on a Papal Bull that he wrote himself, AND in that letter he states that he intended the Bull that he wrote to “pass a final judgment and settle (the question) forever” and that “Catholics were bound to receive (the judgment) with the fullest obedience.”

      It’s kind of like your boss writing a letter to a company board member telling them that he really did intend to sack the employee that he’s just verbally terminated the employment of.

    89. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 5:06 pm

      Scary White,

      I wouldn’t think that a Pope saying “gosh, that encyclical I wrote some time back which I didn’t claim infallibility in, well, now I’d like to claim infallibility for it” really meets the required standard.

      The whole business of valid Apostolic Succession is something of a two edged sword and maybe those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

      We don’t really know for sure if some bishop or bishops in the Catholic line of Apostolic succession ordained without intending to do what the Church does when ordaining (which would make the ordination invalid).

      God Bless

    90. Gianna June 5, 2008 at 5:08 pm

      Um, it does if the letter writer is a Pope, and in that letter he is commenting on a Papal Bull that he wrote himself, AND in that letter he states that he intended the Bull that he wrote to “pass a final judgment and settle (the question) forever” and that “Catholics were bound to receive (the judgment) with the fullest obedience.”

      Did we read this Chris my dear?

    91. TTM June 5, 2008 at 6:15 pm

      Re: Infallibility – to reiterate a point by quoting from the home thread:

      This minimization of belief only to dogmas, which was never a Catholic practice, are tactics used by dissenters to promote their agenda. Such primacy of doubt and trivialization of authority has to be contrary to faith, hope and charity.

      Again, this is really a reiteration of the obvious in the face of such psychologised propaganda. It seems to me that we are not so much concerned with the Great Commission as with the Great Contention.

    92. TTM June 5, 2008 at 6:29 pm

      It’s clear from the Scriptures that obedience is the normative practice for God’s people, in accord with the eternal archetypes for the whole of the Christian life: death through Adam’s disobedience, life through Christ’s obedience unto the cross.

      Primacy of doubt seems the speciality of the devil whose maxim, “I will not serve”, caused his fall, and plants a seed of doubt with the words, “Did God say…” (Gen 3:1).

      Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
      (Romans 13:1-6 RSV)

      Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, [sects/heresies], envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
      (Galatians 5:19-21 RSV)

      If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
      (Matthew 18:16-17 RSV)

      Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
      (Hebrews 13:17 RSV)

      if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
      (I Timothy 3:15 RSV)

    93. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 7:04 pm

      Gianna,

      A teaching is only infallible if it’s addressed to the whole church.

      A letter to someone (even a Cardinal) is not addressed to the whole Church and therefore cannot establish infallibility.

      This is why the papal bull defining interest on loans are immoral is not infallible – because it was only addressed to Italy, not to the whole Church.

      God Bless

    94. Chris Sullivan June 5, 2008 at 8:12 pm

      Pope Leo XIII’s argument seems to be :-

      1. The form of the original Anglican rites of ordination is insufficient for it merely says “Receive the Holy Spirit” and not “for the office and work of a priest” [and similarly for the consecration of bishops]. To be a sacrament, the form must signify the grace confered and Leo XIII is obviously right that the original Anglican form was seriously deficient in form.

      2. The Anglicans corrected the form but only after 100 years of invalid ordinations performed under the invalid form. Therefore apostolic sucession was lost. Which again appears obvious.

      But these deficiencies can clearly be corrected by simply adopting a valid form (which the Anglicans did after 100 years) and having validly ordained bishops (Old Catholic etc) consecrate all the Anglican bishops (I’m not sure if the Anglicans in fact did this in all cases).

      I note that the key phrase in Apostolicae Curae says that the “ordinations enacted according to the Anglican rite have hitherto been and are invalid and entirely void” [DZ 1966] which implies

      a) Reforming the Anglican rite (the rite used for the 1st 100 years) would fix the form

      and

      b) it’s only the ordinations up to Apostolicae Curae that are known to be invalid.

      God Bless

    95. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 10:43 pm

      Mr. Scary White Conservative,

      It seems that some rebellions die hard.

      Forgive me, I take it all back and repent in dust and ashes. My last comment ought to have read:

      “Watch us”

      This particular principled stand is not my own, but that of the Church of God in England, to which I naturally submit.

      Andrewesman, (another scary white conservative with a Prayer Book, a pipe organ and a walking stick….)

    96. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 10:54 pm

      Andrewesman,

      Rome is calling brother – you know you can’t hold out forever.

      I know that you really want to cross the Tiber.

      I can hear it in your posts.

      You’d have to be one of the few remaining Anglicans who reject the ordination of women, and who still knows what a pipe organ actually is.

      Are you sure that it’s just not that you haven’t found the right sponsor yet?

      :-)

    97. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 11:02 pm

      I can hear it in your posts.

      Eh? What? Can’t hear you there. James, fetch out my ear trumpet! No, I said EAR TRUMPET! Pass me my copy of Eikon Basilike, and let’s have no more nonsense

      Rome is calling brother – you know you can’t hold out forever.

      Watch me.
      .

    98. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 5, 2008 at 11:08 pm

      The further you walk from Rome, the closer you actually get…

      ;-)

    99. Andrewesman June 5, 2008 at 11:16 pm

      That is pithy, and well expressed, Sir. It is a crying shame I have no idea what it means.

    100. Gianna June 5, 2008 at 11:24 pm

      Actually SCARY WHITE I think Andrewsman is further than you think ;)

    101. poorclear June 6, 2008 at 2:09 am

      Andrewesman – I appreciate you comments in 44. And your position in 51.

      You mentioned Trent. I am interested to know what you think of the decree on justification. I find it very beautiful. Are you in agreement with it?

    102. Chris Sullivan June 6, 2008 at 7:03 am

      Andrewsman,

      And a question from me if you don’t mind.

      If you are so sure that Anglican women priests are not validly ordained and that when they celebrate mass the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Jesus, what makes you so sure that when an Anglican male priest celebrates mass that the bread and wine do become the body and blood of Jesus ?

      Surely it can’t just be because the Anglican Church told you so because you reject what your Church says about the validity of ordaining women.

      And what do you make of Leo XIII’s argument that the form of the original Anglican ordination rite is seriously deficient wrt the words used and therefore ineffective ? A sacrament must be a proper sign and it seems that the original Anglican sacrament of ordination was not a proper sign.

      God Bless

    103. FXD June 6, 2008 at 8:01 am

      Christopher:

      Not that I particularly want to defend Andrewesman here, because:

      a) I think you raise a useful point, and

      b) he’s more than capable of defending himself, but…

      ‘A sacrament must be a proper sign and it seems that the original Anglican sacrament of ordination was not a proper sign…’

      People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, Christopher.

      pro multis, anyone?

    104. Chris Sullivan June 6, 2008 at 8:13 am

      FXD,

      And your point is ?

      You’re not denying the efficacy of the Novus Ordo Catholic consecration simply because “pro multis” is translated as “for all”, as Fr Meuli has done ?

      God Bless

    105. FXD June 6, 2008 at 10:55 am

      Hi Christopher,

      no, I’m not.

      I’m just pointing out that we ought to be careful.

      At the same time, anyone with an even rudimentary knowledge of Latin knows that pro multis cannot mean for all.

      It is a mistranslation.

      Pure and simple.

      It is not what Christ said.

      Pure and simple.

      Therefore it is not what Christ meant.

      Pure and simple.

    106. James the Least June 6, 2008 at 11:13 am

      FXD,

      I don’t have a rudimentary knowledge of Latin – what does pro multis translate to?

      All,

      I can quite honestly say I never would have predicted the conversation going this way, but it makes for very interesting reading. :) If somewhat well above my head. But I’m learning a lot. Keep it up (and keep it charitable! ;) )

    107. Chris Sullivan June 6, 2008 at 11:20 am

      FXD,

      The words that Christ used in the first mass were not originally handed down in Latin.

      They were handed down in Greek, the language the gospels were written in and the language of the early Church.

      In Greek, the word used is “polus”, which can be translated as “all”. In fact, it has been translated as “all” in the English language liturgy for last 40 odd years.

      The Catholic Church teaches that Christ died for all

      http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=%22died+for+all%22&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

      The authentic meaning of the Greek “polus eis” or the latin “pro multis” is given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church :-

      605 At the end of the parable of the lost sheep Jesus recalled that God’s love excludes no one: “So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” He affirms that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many”; this last term is not restrictive, but contrasts the whole of humanity with the unique person of the redeemer who hands himself over to save us. The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: “There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.”

      http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/605.htm

      God Bless

    108. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 6, 2008 at 11:24 am

      “It is a crying shame I have no idea what it means.”

      Well Andrewesman,

      Let me explain.

      Those who protest against Rome invariably spend a lot of time thinking about Rome.

      And the more time one spends thinking about the truth (even in a state of protest) the more opportunities one is allowing for the truth to enlighten their intellect, and guide their will.

    109. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 6, 2008 at 11:29 am

      “They were handed down in Greek”

      No they weren’t.

      Christ spoke Aramaic not Greek, and the first transmission of the words of the last Supper were oral and spoken in Aramaic (from Christ to the 12 Apostles, and then from the Apostles to the various churches).

      The first written copies of almost all of the Gospels are almost certain to have been written in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek later.

    110. Chris Sullivan June 6, 2008 at 11:30 am

      The note in the New American Bible produced by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops explains :-

      Many does not mean that some are excluded, but is a Semitism designating the collectivity who benefit from the service of the one, and is equivalent to “all.”

      http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew20.htm

      The problem with translating “polus eis” as “for many” is that in modern English the word “many” does not mean a multitude but could mean just a few, and Christ clearly did not die just for a few, but for the collective multitude of humanity.

      God Bless

    111. Chris Sullivan June 6, 2008 at 11:32 am

      Scary White,

      Good point in 109. Which illustrates that the correct meaning must be obtained from the Aramaic Hebrew and the original semitic sense of the term, not from much later latin translations.

      God Bless

    112. Chris Sullivan June 6, 2008 at 11:43 am

      James,

      The Latin meaning is :

      multi : many, numerous / the common herd.

      http://www.nd.edu/~archives/mmm.htm

      There are some interesting articles at

      http://www.americancatholicpress.org/Father_Zerwick_Pro_Multis.html

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_multis

      God Bless

    113. lawrence June 6, 2008 at 1:01 pm

      “They were handed down in Greek”

      No they weren’t.

      Christ spoke Aramaic not Greek, and the first transmission of the words of the last Supper were oral and spoken in Aramaic (from Christ to the 12 Apostles, and then from the Apostles to the various churches).

      The first written copies of almost all of the Gospels are almost certain to have been written in Aramaic, and then translated into Greek later.

      So Firstly they were orally passed down in Aramaic, then translated into Greek and passed down in Greek?

      Sir your last point contradicts your moot.

      Rather bad stuff aye?

    114. FXD June 6, 2008 at 1:15 pm

      James,

      just quickly:

      pro multis translates as: for many.

      Now, Christopher, had the ancients thought as you think, they would have said pro omnis, which means ‘for all’, and which is proper to use of people.

      No-one is questioning that Christ died for all, Christopher. Of course he did. But that is not the point.

      His blood is not necessarily efficacious for all, as there are those who reject Him.

      Furthermore, it seems certain that the new translation of the Mass will translate pro multis correctly, which puts the lie to your assertions about the translation being okay.

    115. jjen009 June 6, 2008 at 2:37 pm

      Now, Christopher, had the ancients thought as you think, they would have said pro omnis, which means ‘for all’, and which is proper to use of people.

      Well, actually…

      If the Lord had been speaking Latin, I think He would have said “pro omnibus” if His grammar were correct. OTOH the New Testament is in Greek. OTOOH (On The Other Other Hand), He was probably speaking Aramaic – though there are those who argue He was actually speaking Hebrew.

      “For all” is wrong not because of what Jesus says but because of what the official Mass in Latin says, which is “pro multis” and is “for many” – or possible “for the many.” I do not think the Mass line is intended to take a kind of Calvinistic “limited atonement” line, and I think there is a lot to be said for the “for the many” meaning of the phrase – but “for all” is not a translation of the Latin. end of story. If “for the many” is good theology – I think it may be – then “for the many” can be a good translation as Latin lacks the definite article. But “for all” is simply wrong.

      jj

    116. FXD June 6, 2008 at 2:51 pm

      Ha!

      Thanks jjen009!

      posting quickly, I had forgotten that omnis -is -e is a third declension adjective, not a first and second declension adjective.

      Of course, omnibus, omnibus – I shall write it out a hundred times.

      And I should have said ‘the ancients would have written’, not ‘said’.

      Shows one shouldn’t post under time pressure!

    117. Andrewesman June 6, 2008 at 2:54 pm

      Mr. Conservative,

      I’m afraid I must disappoint you. My stance is Protestant, but not protestant. I don’t spend much time at all thinking about Roman errors; I’ve rejected them. As the English Church does, I respect, admire and enjoy the many good and beautiful things maintained in the Church of Rome, but I am an Anglican not primarily because I reject Rome, but because I think classical Anglican teaching is true–and I like being an Anglican.

      I like that hushed pause before the priest says the words at which we kneel: “All glory and thanksgiving to You, Holy Father”. And the creaking joints as we all do it.

      I like the sternness of the General Confession, the majesty of the Te Deum Laudamus, the liquidity and concentration of the Great Litany.

      I like the beautiful soaring rhythm of Anglican chant and choral music, as “night by night, in peace, Amen, we hymn thy praise” in the proper tradition of English Use.

      I like Bishop Latimer’s sermons, and Lancelot Andrewes’s private devotions, and George Herbert’s poetry, and receiving proper absolution from a priest who looks like a priest, but at the same time can preach, and do so with that particularly Anglican mixture of rigour and gentleness.

      I like the hymnal, and its beauty, and its complete and total indifference to fashion. And I remember–the icons and heroes of Anglican history: “Be of good cheer, Master Ridley, and play the man!” “It is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes!” “Fight him therefore, only with the sword of the pure Word of God” “Upon Him the seed of Abraham He took, it would have been enough to give us leave to come to him againe, but He pursued us, He took after us, and brought us backe to Him againe…”

      And lest someone cavil, I like those things because they are an expression of comprehensive and generous truth, a truth which makes free, and to which the English Church has always bourne witness. “We therefore shall maintain the Truth of Christ, as this Church and Realm hath received it”.

      Chris,

      If you are so sure that Anglican women priests are not validly ordained and that when they celebrate mass the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Jesus, what makes you so sure that when an Anglican male priest celebrates mass that the bread and wine do become the body and blood of Jesus ?

      Women are ontologically incapable of ordination, since the priesthood is for men only. We have no authority to alter this, and we ought not to have done so, since we oppose in doing so a wider catholic and Biblical tradition which the Church of England has always considered itself a part of, and our own ancient practice (the Blessed Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, my username sake, famously postulated the Anglican High Five: “One Canon, Two Testaments, Three Creeds, Four Creeds, Five Centuries). Men, with the exception of those ordained by women bishops, have valid Holy Orders–as my parish priest does.

      Saepius Officio, our response to Leo, seemed convincing to me. I have not yet finished reading the Catholic response to the response. I disagree with my Church simply because it is in disagreement with its own traditional and catholic practice–and because the Lambeth Conference allows me to do so in good conscience while the Communion is in a process of reception.

      Poorclear,

      I am afraid the debate on Justification is one I have not followed–I am familiar with some of the decrees of Trent, but the later development and interpretation of that article makes my head spin. I believe in Justification by faith alone, but saving faith that saves is not alone–so in the end it becomes a little academic. Even the Roman position says that the capacity for works is a gift of grace–so, I’m sorry to let you down on that, but the 39 Articles will do for me.

    118. Andrewesman June 6, 2008 at 2:55 pm

      By the way, the Anglican use has always had “for many” which is the transparent translation of the phrase.

    119. TTM June 6, 2008 at 3:00 pm

      from Karl Keating’s “What Catholics Really Believe: Setting the Record Straight” (p.43), re: synoptic gospels:

      In the phrase “to show mercy to our fathers, the expression “to show mercy is the Hebrew verb hanan which is the root of the name Yohanan (John). In “he remembers his holy covenant,” “he remembers” is the verb zakar, which is the root of the name Zakaryah (Zachary). In “the oath which he swore to our father Abraham” is found, for “to take an oath,” the verb shaba, which is the root of the name Elishaba (Elizabeth).

      “is it by chance,” asks Carmignac, “that the second strophe of this poem begins by a triple allusion to the nammes of the three protagonists: John Zachary, Elizabeth? But this allusion only exists in Hebrew; the Greek or English translation does not preserve it.”

    120. TTM June 6, 2008 at 3:10 pm

      Andrewesman,

      what do you consider to be “Roman errors”? Would they include the articles mentioned in post #55?

    121. Andrewesman June 6, 2008 at 4:52 pm

      Yes, that’s one, Papal claims.

      Also Marian doctrines, the tendency towards a blurring of Christocentric focus at times, Justification, with the caveat expressed already, the Bible and Tradition, all the usual Protestant things.

    122. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 6, 2008 at 6:41 pm

      See, you do spend a lot of time thinking about Rome.

      Unless of course you were trying to tell me in #117 that haven’t really thought about these things and your voluntary separation from Christ’s Church is merely based on lack of understanding?

      ;-)

    123. Andrewesman June 6, 2008 at 8:43 pm

      Not at all. As I said, my choice is a positive one, toward the English Church, not away from the Roman. TTM asked me what I believe the errors of Rome to be, that is by definition a negative question. But for me Anglicanism is more than that; it’s a positive choice.

    124. Chris Sullivan June 7, 2008 at 8:18 am

      Andrewsman,

      From what I can tell, the Anglican Church now accepts all the Catholic Marian doctrines (or at least sees them as consistent with the faith). There was a document about it a few years ago.

      God Bless

    125. Andrewesman June 7, 2008 at 2:12 pm

      The words used were “consonant with an Anglican way of reading Scripture”

      “Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ” was controversial even at the time; consonant does not mean accepted–it only means that if you do believe in the Assumption you won’t face a heresy trial. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

      Besides which, ARCIC has stalled since 2003–no prizes for guessing why–and probably not a bad thing either, given the current climate.

    126. poorclear June 7, 2008 at 3:17 pm

      Andrewesman,

      What is the context of the phrase: ‘Mary, grace and hope in Christ’ as in, do you know where that is presented in Catholic teaching?

      In general, with Marian doctrines, (and I don’t know which ones you love and which ones you have difficulty with – though I imagine that you at least love “Mary, mother of God”, embracing as you do, a sound Christology) I would outline a field of exploration:

      Mary’s place is always in relation to Christ, never for herself. And yet she is vital to understanding the centrality of Christ, because Christ comes to establish a covenant in His blood, and everlasting covenant, not one that will be broken by Israel’s infidelity, like the preceding ones, but a definitive one that will begin here but that is already in eternity through his glorified risen flesh. That covenant calls for a response, that is whole and faithful, and such a response can only be the fruit of the supports of grace. That response is already total and definitive in Mary, thanks to the gracing of her for this vocation by the Holy Spirit.

      She is not simply a surrogate mother, necessary physically but left behind afterwards for His higher mission. She is also the secret of His fraternal love, the secret of His heart on the horizontal level if you like, as opposed to the secret of His heart on a vertical level, which is the Father. But He loves her with his human heart ultimately in the light of the Father’s love for her, the Father’s ultimate election of her, the Father’s ultimate plan of salvation. The Father’s plan is of course His own eternally, but He has still received it from the Father.

      She is the ultimate daughter of Zion, the second Eve, whose yes of obedience untied the knot of Eve’s disobedience, not by herself, but in cooperation with the second Adam. That “yes” isn’t simply at the annunciation – it is ratified completely at the cross. It is the will of Christ to draw our attention to her at the cross, which is rather odd. If we were planning it we might be as shortsighted and modern univocal simplistic liturgists who would say: “we mustn’t sing to Mary at Mass because the Mass is centred on Jesus.” Of course the Mass is centred on Jesus in the moment of his self-gift to the Father through the cross, and in that moment He is centred on the Father, and yet he commands John to behold his mother, not simply to give her a roof over her head, as a merely material reading of the Holy Scriptures might conclude, but to also give him a heart to receive into his, so that John not only welcomes her into his home physically, but spiritually, because effectively her home is becoming his home. Her home is the heart of Christ – and if John wishes to penetrate that heart, as John has so marvellously, he must learn the secret of her contemplation, of her total love, of the mystery of the love between Jesus and Mary. This will give him a more penetrating entry into being a child of the Father, a brother of Jesus, a child even of the same mother.

      She is the one first given the two wings to escape the dragon, which the fathers of the Church identify as adoration and contemplation – the one protected by God for the time of struggle, the one to whom the dragon has no access. And so he makes war on the rest of her children – those who believe in Christ and keep the commandments. Here she stands for the whole Church, but she is its first member, she is its model, she is the one who best receives the covenant offer and who completes it with her graced ‘yes’.

      In her the spiritual marriage of the Lamb to his bride the Church finds the bridal receptivity that makes the covenant fruitful with his offspring.

      If she is our hope in Christ, it is not in the same way that He is our hope. He is our hope because He is our Saviour, the only one who can restore us to the Father, who can grace us with adoption through the grace from His pierced side. She is our hope in a totally different but related way – as the one who proves that that grace is effective, as the one who has gone before us, as one of us who is already fully saved, in soul and in body. She shows what He wants for all of us. Thus, we can call her, with Mother Teresa, and the Church, “cause of our joy.” He is our joy – the presence of the one we love as our ultimate finality. She brought him to us, physically and continues to bring him to us spiritually – so in that sense is a cause (an instrumental one) – but also, she is cause of our joy as model, as exemplary cause, as the one who shows that our joy is to be for real and is to be complete.

      Because Protestantism has lost sight of the full implications of the covenant by which we are saved, of the adoption by which we are saved, of the participation in Christ by which we are saved, they have lost the real meaning of the role of Mary in that covenant, in that adoption, in that participation in Christ.

      Reducing his saving to an act of legal justice, Luther loses the place of transformation in Christ, of following the Lamb wherever He goes, of entering His spiritual family. Thus, he loses the Mass, he loses the significance of the sacraments, and indeed most of the sacraments, and in the end he paves the way for the loss of Mary, the loss of appreciation for the reception of the covenant, putting himself far from the heart of Christ and far from the heart of Christianity.

      He perhaps can’t be blamed for not seeing the full consequences of his actions. He was only one man, only one character perhaps sincerely trying to make his way through his terrible scruples to find a way that his sinfulness wouldn’t wreck his chances of being saved. But he wasn’t up to that task. Instead of discovering the infinite mercy of Christ’s heart, (and the greatest recipient of that mercy is Mary), he found a solution in making his actions independent of his salvation, thinking that sins against charity were as irrelevant to salvation as the physical works of the old law like circumscision.

      Trent on justification is a good read in answer to that when you have a chance.

      But Mary is our topic – a full recipient of grace, of mercy, of divine life. She is the treasure of God’s heart, and to her He has given grace upon grace, for each ‘yes’ to him opens the way to a new grace to go further in love. She has thus most fully shared in his passion, been most united to his heart so that her own soul was pierced as the secret thoughts of many were laid bare when His heart was pierced.

      Did He need her to save us? No. Did he choose to let her cooperate in our salvation? Yes. Because in his infinite wisdom and mercy, he lets us not only receive grace, but cooperate in the realisation of his kingdom, not just in us, but in others. If we can pray for each other, if we can preach the Word to each other, then there already is enough foundation to see that He has gone beyond justice to mercy – that his covenant is not just a just one, but one of superabundant love, and that even though He offers Himself fully in every wound, in every insult, in every nail, even to his last breath, His heart is pierced when He is already dead, and that superabundant totally gratuitous wound which signifies the overflow of grace is offered by Mary – in her heart of hearts to the Father through Him.

      Ask her to be close to you, to come to you in her motherhood of you, and she will. And know that it is in accordance with the will of Christ – have no fear of it. Because you believe in Christ and strive to keep the commandments so she is your mother, and you are His brother, and you want to heed the dying words of Christ to behold her, even if only to find out why He wanted you to behold her. Believing as you do in the communion of saints, why not invite her and invite John to help you behold her and to receive the word of Christ as he did at the cross and receive her into your home?

      Perhaps you have. As I said, I don’t really know your position on it and don’t have the opportunity to discuss it with you face to face unfortunately, which I would much prefer.

      It is something that many Catholics do not understand I think, especially in countries like NZ where we have largely forgotten the centrality of the covenant. It is here that a renewal of catechesis is most needed I feel.

      Anyway enough said.

    127. poorclear June 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm

      Andrewesman – just read 117, and there are many things there that you like that I also like. I would see them as classically English rather than Anglican! And I think there has been a degradation in modern trite English translations of Catholic liturgy for example. Hopefully it will gradually be redressed as is the intention of dear Pope Benedict.

      For that, I am happy to pursue our common ground of England prereformation. I think there we find the seeds of what has continued to be strong in the Anglican tradition. And I think that on the level of aesthetics, the Anglicans have guarded things more carefully than much of the English speaking Catholic world.

      But I could never be an Anglican for aesthetical reasons (as in aesthetical reasons would never be enough). Because form is never before finality but in service of it. And authority is also in service of it, but at a more fundamental and structural level than aesthetical forms. The real issue is authority and that is what needs to be humbly and carefully explored by all. And really we shouldn’t rest until we have got to the bottom of it, in as much as the Lord allows us penetration of His will for the Church on that matter.

      God bless brother.

    128. poorclear June 7, 2008 at 3:45 pm

      With all the deference to Anglican aesthetical care, I still want to say that the Westminster Cathedral choir could teach a thing or two to any other choir in England! Hehe.

    129. Chris Sullivan June 7, 2008 at 4:03 pm

      poorclear,

      “Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ” is the name of the doucment produced by the Anglican – Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC). It is a joint statement of the Commission. The authorities who appointed the Commission have allowed the statement to be published so that it may be widely discussed. It is not an authoritative declaration by the Roman Catholic Church or by the Anglican Communion, who will study and evaluate the document in due course.

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/angl-comm-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20050516_mary-grace-hope-christ_en.html

      “Mary, Grace and Hope in Christ” was controversial even at the time; consonant does not mean accepted-it only means that if you do believe in the Assumption you won’t face a heresy trial. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

      I dunno Andrewsman. Around here if you’re not accused of heresy, it probably does amount to a ringing endorsement :)

      But if the ARCIC can come to an understanding that Catholic Marian dogma is not heretical from an Anglican point of view, then I think that’s a huge step forward.

      Piece by piece and step by step we are working to restore full unity.

      God Bless

    130. poorclear June 7, 2008 at 4:12 pm

      Thanks Chris.

    131. poorclear June 7, 2008 at 4:53 pm

      Another thought Andrewesman. Even before you turn to Mary to ‘behold your mother’ she is already beholding you, because she hears the Word of God and keeps it – she ‘beholds her son” not only in Christ, but now in John, and in the man baptised into the side of Christ who stands behind the name “Andrewesman”.

    132. Chris Sullivan June 7, 2008 at 5:03 pm

      Historically speaking, the Anglicans and the protestants originally were very Marian (especially Luther).

      As they have drifted further away from the truth they have drifted further away from Mary.

      It’s weird really because all the tradition up to Henry VII was very Marian.

      God Bless

    133. poorclear June 7, 2008 at 11:10 pm

      Yes, but if you follow Luther’s position on justification to its conclusion you will lose Mary in the end, because you will lose the real need for graced response in the covenant beyond an act of the faith made once and for all. That is his error and it has consequences beyond any residue of traditional devotion that he may have held onto personally. People don’t always think their ideas right to the end. Sometimes it takes the ones who come after them who take it up and continue in the same logic, to show whether there is really something diabolical behind it.

    134. TTM June 8, 2008 at 12:16 am

      Speaking of Anglicans and Marian devotion…

      The Virgin
      William Wordsworth

      Mother! whose virgin bosom was uncrost
      With the least shade of thought to sin allied;
      Woman! above all women glorified,
      Our tainted nature’s solitary boast;
      Purer than foam on central ocean tost;
      Brighter than eastern skies at daybreak strewn
      With fancied roses, than the unblemished moon
      Before her wane begins on heaven’s blue coast;
      Thy Image falls to earth. Yet some, I ween,
      Not unforgiven the suppliant knee might bend,
      As to a visible Power, in which did blend
      All that was mixed and reconciled in Thee
      Of mother’s love with maiden purity,
      Of high with low, celestial with terrene!

    135. Andrewesman June 8, 2008 at 10:32 am

      I dislike Wordsworth intensely, TTM. Try again. Anything with “spontaneous overflows of powerful feeling” I always feel the need to wipe up after. Try Hopkins–or even Herbert. Something without faux-Medievalism.

      Poorclear, rigourous and beautiful, as usual. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, Mary is a very difficult subject; to the Roman Catholic she evokes feelings similar to those of a mother or a wife; every feeling strains to defend her from insult. To the Protestant, it appears the spectre of Goddess worship is risen again; and as usual, we poor English catholics are somewhere in the middle. For this reason, I beg you to postpone discussion of the Marian doctrines until we do indeed meet in the flesh–which meeting I pray may not be long delayed. It is difficult to do my own position justice in a forum like this, where there are so many knights ready to charge to defend the spotless honour of the Virgin! :-) (These feelings I honour enough not to outrage them–I feel the same about a particular English Queen with red hair)

      I thought that, re-reading my 117, someone would accuse me of giving in to aesthetics, and I had a feeling who it might be! :-) I knew I said “like” too many times. But I am an Anglican because I believe that Anglicanism marries a catholic sensibility with strong and true Protestant bones; Word and Sacrament together at last. All those things I cite give voice to the truth behind the form, and a moderate and careful truth at that. I recommend to you Abp Cranmer’s Preface to the Bible:
      http://www.bible-researcher.com/cranmer.html

      Which in the context of Biblical devotion gives voice to what I mean. We refuse to make Word and Sacrament enemies, refuse to give up an ounce of catholic truth, and so we stand in the middle and are shot at from both sides! I refer you to my favourite poet, Mr. George Herbert:
      http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/herbert/herbbib.htm

      The British Church

      I JOY, deare Mother, when I view
      Thy perfect lineaments, and hue
      Both sweet and bright :

      Beautie in thee takes up her place,
      And dates her letters from thy face,
      When she doth write.

      A fine aspect in fit aray,
      Neither too mean, nor yet too gay,
      Shows who is best :

      Outlandish looks may not compare ;
      For all they either painted are,
      Or else undrest.

      ……………………….

      But, dearest Mother, (what those misse)
      The mean thy praise and glorie is,
      And long may be.

      Blessed be God, whose love it was
      To double-moat thee with his grace,
      And none but thee.

    136. Hilary of Poitiers June 8, 2008 at 5:41 pm

      Andrewesman – your continued use of the term “English catholics” is really quite insulting – even with a small ‘c’ – to the English Catholics who remained loyal to the Church founded by our Lord and faced and still face tremendous persecution. Anglicanism is English protestantism.

      From what I hear in your posts you are pining after a long-lost ideal of what Anglicanism might once have been. As poorclear points out, the things you love are more classically English than Anglican. The Catholics in pre-reformation England naturally had a very English expression of the Faith – the architecture, music and art all had a distinctive flavour to them.

      To imply that Catholicism somehow creates a division between Word and Sacrament is preposterous. Division is something much more at home in Anglicanism. I think you are sadly deluded about the state of Anglicanism worldwide.

      You say: “But I am an Anglican because I believe that Anglicanism marries a catholic sensibility with strong and true Protestant bones.” Well so be it. I am a Catholic because I believe our Lord founded the Church and continues to guide her through the ministry of the successor of the Apostle Peter. “Truth Himself speaks truly or there’s nothing true” as Aquinas wrote. I am a Catholic because of an objective truth. It appears that you are Anglican because of a subjective belief.

      As for the Queen of England – well yes, a lovely lady, but what has she done to stem the loss of the Chritian Faith in England? It seems she has stood by while “Holy Church” has been dismantled around her. Just how composed is your corpse Andrewesman?

    137. lawrence June 8, 2008 at 5:47 pm

      Hillary,

      For Someone who came in calling penalties and insults from Andrewesman, you sure threw a few around.

      How about a bit more tact?

    138. lawrence June 8, 2008 at 5:49 pm

      Personally for the record, I think that English catholics is a very apt term.

      If I remember correctly Rome did split from England sometime earlier this millenium.

      “To imply that Catholicism somehow creates a division between Word and Sacrament is preposterous. Division is something much more at home in Anglicanism”

      Are pot shots your only justification for your premise?

      If we took all the untactful pot shots out of your last blog, I feel we would be left with a very limp skeleton of a blog….

      waste of time…

    139. lawrence June 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm

      You say you are pining after a long-lost ideal of what Anglicanism might once have been

      May I reply, NZ Catholics who talk about the glories of Roman Catholicism as if the Lord continues to guide her through the ministry of the successor of the Apostle Peter. perhaps need to visit either the Queenstown Parish, or any number of parishes across this country that play mockery to Christ and Catholicism.

      You say that Anglicanism has division? Well I think that Bp. Gumbleton professing creeds not close to the Catholic faith whilst others blindly call ‘unity, unity, unity of the Catholic Church’ is worse than a church which acknowledges that it disagrees.

      About time Rome got some more Anathema Sit’s into the Arena and stop pretending that there is unity.

      “but”these parish priests who profess things are not in communion with Rome, but the true Church remains steadfast…

      So to, are the divisions within Anglicanism caused by heretics who are not in communion with the Anglican tradition!

      What is the difference: On face value, nothing!!!

      :)

    140. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 8, 2008 at 7:40 pm

      “What is the difference…”

      There is actually quite a huge difference.

      Bishop Gumbleton may be professing a creed that is opposed to Catholic doctrine, but the very reason we know that is because at the heart of the Catholic Church is a constant Tradition, given by Christ and built on Sacred Scripture and the Rock of Peter.

      Anglicanism has no such authority, as it has long since splintered into various and differing factions – the very issue here is that because Anglicanism rejected the Church in favour of Protestantism, there is no longer any authority to correct errant interpretations of Sacred Scripture or Christian tradition.

      In many places the Catholic Church may be experiencing a crisis of obedience right now, but Anglicanism can never have any such crisis because their is no unifying authority that Anglicans must be obedient to.

      Ultimately the Catholic crisis can be corrected at anytime, but sadly the Anglican crisis can never be remedied.

      This is the cold hard reality of Protestantism, which is based on the idea that all you need is a Bible and the Holy Spirit will somehow magically take care of the rest.

      The fact is that once you reject the authority of the Church, then you can no longer legitimately claim that your followers must not also reject you and your new doctrinal ideas.

      All that Anglicanism tried to do was replace the legitimate authority of the successor of Peter with the authority of the English monarch and some local bishops.

      In doing so, the reformers separated truth from the very authority that Christ ordained to guard and promulgate that truth.

      And the rest is history, as it didn’t take long for individuals and groups within Anglicanism to realise that if their leaders didn’t have to submit to any authority other than their own, then why should Joe Anglican, or the Vicar of Dibley be expected to submit any authority that his leaders tried to exert over him/her?

      The Anglican experiment has been a tragic failure – the US Episcopalians are haemorrhaging congregants at greater numbers than any other denomination there, and there are now more practicing Catholics than practicing Anglicans in the UK (the very heart of the Anglican experiment).

      It really is a tragedy, because a once great European lung of the Church was dragged into emphysema by individuals who had become besotted with Calvin’s cleverly erroneous ideology.

    141. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 8, 2008 at 7:49 pm

      “Try again.”

      How about the words of Martin Luther then?

      [Mary is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ. ..She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough.

      (Sermon, Christmas, 1531)

    142. poorclear June 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm

      Andrewesman –

      Nicely put in 135 – and we thank you for your respect for those gallant knights who will defend their lady.

      I look forward to exploring the issue with you in person some day, God willing.

      Lawrence – I think that scary white whatshisname is not dumb ox and the other name you suggested a while back – different style of writing really, but then I have never claimed to be an expert in the historical critical method.

      I think in 140, Scary has pinpointed the difference you asked for. It is one of authority, which is the heart of the issue, as always. An important issue to really get to the bottom of. On the ground it is true that there is a great crisis of obedience in the Catholic west. Our great strength though is a protected magisterium, which will always be a sure guide, and which therefore justifies obedience being given. That authority of course must be understood in all its nuances as taught by the Church. There have been a few notably terrible popes in history but no notably terrible official doctrine. For that we can only continue to give thanks to Jesus Christ, who, despite our shameful infidelities at times, is always faithful to his dear Bride, whom we should love as He does, according to His new commandment. Part of loving her as He does for Catholics is the need for humble obedience and part of loving her as He does for Protestants is to look at her with new eyes, to see what He sees and to come back into her bossom, for it comes from His side.

      Peace bro.

    143. Andrewesman June 8, 2008 at 8:34 pm

      Hilary of Poitiers:

      Well, I did touch a few nerves, now, didn’t I?

      Andrewesman – your continued use of the term “English catholics” is really quite insulting.

      And I find your lumping of Anglicanism in with Protestant sects like the Anabaptists and the Presbyterians equally insulting. But I shall try to live with the pain. “English catholicism” is (one of) the accepted phrases used by the High Church party in Anglicanism to refer to itself, as indeed the Church of England refers to itself as “The Catholic Church in England”. I accept you don’t like this, but I must respectfully decline to alter my practice. I am indeed a member of the Church which practises the English expression of patristic catholicism–and whether or not this is true is obviously one of the things we disagree about, just like whether Anglicanism is a Protestant sect. Regardless, I meant and mean no insult to the Recusant Martyrs, whose memory I regard with respect. I could wish respect for Anglican martyrs were as general among Roman Catholics.

      From what I hear in your posts you are pining after a long-lost ideal of what Anglicanism might once have been.

      Well then, with respect, you’re hard of hearing. I have no illusions about the current state of my own Church and Communion–in fact, I am entirely prepared to roll up my sleeves for the reclamation and reformation thereof. We’re not dead yet, by God!

      Division is something much more at home in Anglicanism. I think you are sadly deluded about the state of Anglicanism worldwide.

      HAHAHAhahaha! Oh, my friend, do excuse me, but have you checked the beam in your own eye, lately? It may be a charming conceit that you are all obediently submitting to a fearless Pope, bravely rowing the barque of Peter into the eye of the storm and singing the “Salve Regina”, but honestly, if you think that it’s you who are sadly deluded. Everywhere in Christendom, we are facing the same issues. You just hide it better. I decided that if I have to fight for a Church (and we all do) it might as well be the one I love. Vivat Mater Ecclesia! :-)

      Likewise, I am deeply aware of the rampant heresies and schisms which bedevil International Anglicanism–I am also aware of the Christian heroism, grit and determination shown by a large majority of the Communion in the face of those heresies. No delusions but love. No blindness but faith. No day-dreams, but hope. Saved by hope–now where have I heard that before? :-)

      I am a Catholic because of an objective truth. It appears that you are Anglican because of a subjective belief.

      Well, bully for you! If you think that, you haven’t read what I wrote. Neither have you considered the genius and treasures of Anglicanism sufficiently. I regret your tone, and your conclusions, but not enough to make me change my mind. I am all for an honourable fight, but above the belt please.

    144. Andrewesman June 8, 2008 at 8:44 pm

      Anglicanism has no such authority, as it has long since splintered into various and differing factions – the very issue here is that because Anglicanism rejected the Church in favour of Protestantism, there is no longer any authority to correct errant interpretations of Sacred Scripture or Christian tradition.

      Well, accept for the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates Meeting and the Proposed Anglican Covenant and Catechism. Oh, and the Thirty-Nine Articles.

      The Anglican experiment has been a tragic failure – the US Episcopalians are haemorrhaging congregants at greater numbers than any other denomination there, and there are now more practicing Catholics than practicing Anglicans in the UK (the very heart of the Anglican experiment).

      The US Episcopal Church is a write off, but the replacement (that is, the faithful) Anglican Province in North America won’t be. As for England, I give you one word: France. Actually, no, take Italy, even. Church attendance fell everywhere–and Anglicanism shows great promise of renewal and rejuvenation in the Global South, and even in England among those who have remained faithful to her formularies. I am not giving up on Anglicanism because she has been invaded by parasites–the thing to do is start the prayer and send for the doctor–much like in the Roman Catholic Church, who has had to do both many times. I shall forbear from making nasty remarks about the failure of several of them–Again, I regret the unfortunate tone of some on this thread, and I regret further if I have contributed to it by maintaining my own position with undue strength–although I resile from it not one iota.

      I will maintain, as we will maintain, the Truth of God as this Church and Realm have received it. And so long as there is an English Church to be in, you will find me fighting for it. That’s what you do for your Mother when she’s sick–you may do as you choose.

    145. Andrewesman June 8, 2008 at 8:47 pm

      Poorclear,

      I think Dumb Ox and SWC are both drawn from Source Q. I and my tame round table of theologians are working on identifying him or her as we speak.

    146. Andrewesman June 8, 2008 at 8:57 pm

      Oh, and at the risk of being tedious (too late, they cried) I refer you to the reflection of the Lord Archbishop on the present identity of Anglicanism, “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today”:
      http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr6706.html

      It repays careful study.

    147. Hilary of Poitiers June 8, 2008 at 9:22 pm

      Pleased to have helped spur a few more comments…

      Lawrence, your defence of Andrewesman in noble but perhaps a little unnecessary. The blog is not “Being Tactful” but “Being Frank”. Niceties are all good and well but sometimes some blunt talk is needed to make any progress, however one might define that.

      Andrewesman, I don’t think you have touched any nerves. It would seem I might have hit a few though! A pity we can’t get a sense of someone’s tone from just the written text. I assure you, I am speaking in a nice voice – the Queen’s English even! – and with a smile or two thrown in!!

      I have great respect for all those things in Anglicanism that retain something of the Catholica.

      I don’t deny for a moment the widespread dissent within the Catholic Church that both Lawrence and Andrewesman point out. The difference is that in Catholicism it is dissent; in Anglicanism it is division. The difference stems from the fact that the Catholic Church is Divinely instituted and cannot err in matters faith or morals; Anglicanism is a human construct and suffers in consequence.

      Sometimes things are subtle in definition but substantial in essence.

    148. Gianna June 8, 2008 at 10:30 pm

      I must say that this lady knows Andrewsman personally, and while disagree substantially on many theological issues this:

      It appears that you are Anglican because of a subjective belief

      is rather unfair. However blindsighted Andresman is about Anglicanisim, I can only claim similiar blindsight with Catholicisim and I can also attest to his deep knowledge and theology.

      The knights and the queen he may like, but a subjective, airy fairly believer he is not and I would ask you to not insult him as such (although feel free to tackle him on faith issues as much as you like, although I am sure this will only serve to further put your point in doubt :) )

      Also this I like Catholicism it is dissent as opposed to division (whether this is true or not I shall leave to Andresman!)

    149. Scary white conservative with a banjo and an AK-47 June 8, 2008 at 10:56 pm

      “Well, accept for the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primates Meeting and the Proposed Anglican Covenant and Catechism. Oh, and the Thirty-Nine Articles.”

      Andrewesman, when was the last time that a truly binding authoritative statement was made by the Anglican Hierarchy?

      And how would such a binding statement ever be enforced when Anglican churches act as independent entities, and you have entire countries threatening to split and form their own Anglican church over issues like homosexual ordination?

      Also, a sure sign of unity is the existence of liturgical norms, but from what I can see there are no such norms for Anglican worship: one Anglican church down the road from me has Sunday services that resemble Hillsong church, while the other Anglican church down the road from me has a Sunday service right out of the high Anglican prayerbook.

      There is no constant liturgical norm though, and this is always a key indicator that there is no real unity within a Church – if one Anglican church looks like Hillsong and the other like Canterbury Cathedral, then you have at least two different churches operating there.

      “I regret the unfortunate tone of some on this thread, and I regret further if I have contributed to it by maintaining my own position with undue strength-although I resile from it not one iota.”

      You have nothing to regret at all!

      I am sure I speak for many others here when I say that we always welcome a robust ecemunical discussion on matters of doctrine, rather than the usual pithy, syrupy and sychophantic ear lickings that many moderns like to call “dialogue”.

      Such dialogues go round in circles, and the truth normally becomes the first casualty.

      “That’s what you do for your Mother when she’s sick-you may do as you choose.”

      Yes, but what if the woman you thought was your mother was actually some woman who had kidnapped you and taken you away from your real mother?

      Or what if your mother was sick because she had been taking Dr. Calvin’s DIY home remedies instead of following Dr. Kephas’ 12 Apostolic steps to health program?